News

SWINGFIELD PARISH COUNCIL'S CASE AGAINST SELSTED SCHOOL CLOSURE

Following last night's public meeting (28 June) with KCC over the proposed closure of Selsted School, here is the view of Swingfield Parish Council as presented by Council Chairman Cllr Colin Tearle

"The rationale currently driving Kent's policy behind the closure of Selsted School, is we are told, Government Policy. 

But is that the whole picture? Government policy quite correctly, is to attempt to make economic use of the spaces available, but it equally has stated in circular number 110/98 that it has pledged to end the wholesale closures of the very type that is proposed here tonight. In other words there is a government presumption against closure. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has provided protection for small schools and Church of England Schools by way of regulation to make it difficult to close schools like Selsted. Why? Because the closing of country schools strikes at the heart of the rural fabric of our society. Yet I counted the other day from an SDC publication 17 committees or quangos that were ALL seeking to promote and safeguard the countryside, either funded by the Government, KCC or Shepway. Seems to me a strange way of spending scarce public recourses if you are going to close the very institutions that lay the foundations of the rural way of life whilst at the same time promoting it. 

It is absolutely essential that Kent's decision makers in making this vital decision in a few weeks time take a careful look at the full financial picture of closing Selsted. Indeed, I do not see any financial gain or savings. Quite the contrary!

At the heart of this debate should be the question of how we value our distinctive rural way of life and how it interacts on primary school education. You only have to study some of the recommendations in the Kent Primary Strategy which talk about schools of 210 or 420 pupils to realize that the authors of this report did not have much time for small schools or think that small schools can contribute significantly to education or our distinctive rural and community way of life. In these proposals is the philosophy that biggest is best. Are you trying “to urbanise� rural children so that they forget their roots? How dull and dreary everything would be if that were to come to fruition.

Respect and equality is at the heart of the Kent Primary Strategy which says, `Kent`s pupils should experience an education that meets their increasingly diverse needs and which gives every child the best possible learning opportunities, irrespective of their backgrounds or beliefs`. Part of the richness and diversity of Selsted School are the annual pupil exchanges with a school in Normandy. Ironically 22 adults and pupils are coming next week for 4 days to visit the school at the very time some people want to close it down. The life and character of our county and country is enriched and flourishes because of this very diversity, and who says small schools certainly do not deliver the product, certainly not the working party that wrote the document 'Small Church of England Primary Schools in Kent`, Report of a Working Party of Canterbury and Rochester Diocesan Boards of Education. That states the strength of a small school is its distinctive ethos. Well does that sum up Selsted School and these are encapsulated in the following points

-Strong and visionary leadership which encourages effective team work.

-High quality teaching and learning

-Strong links with the community and church

-Creation of a social centre which is at the heart of our community

-The potential to achieve rapid results which parents here can attested to.

-A culture of can do, will do, with the determination to find the means to do so.

-The security of a small and caring school community and environment where some pupils may feel more able to cope socially.

-Serving children according to their individual needs.

-Staff know the children and their families well and the children are treated as individuals.

These last three points are what gives Selsted its special character. It has been well known for many years that children with various difficulties have been able to thrive in the environment that has been created at this school and have gone on to become very useful citizens of this country. Something I doubt that could have been achieved in a big school where the needs of an individual are by necessity less likely to be accommodated. This extremely useful and rare attribute of this school has long been recognised by local education officers including the current Area Education Officer, David Adams who have for a very long time recommended this school to many parents. Yes, it is true it has had an unfortunate side effect which is highlighted in the document entitled “Proposals for the Reduction of Surplus Capacity in Primary Schools in the Shepway Districtâ€? at paragraph 3.2 (2) and (3). Here it states there are currently 34% SEN pupils and that the attainment of KS2 has been stable but below the national average. Isn’t it going to be? Yet this is listed as a reason for closure! And yet Mr Adams knows full well he has a letter from me on file when I was the Chairman of Selsted School Governors on their behalf, pointing out this very fact, that it was as a result of LEA policy towards this school. Despite this very fact it turns out that Selsted’s performance appears no better or worse at KS2 than any other small school according to the report by the Diocesan Board of Education. 

This report continues and says “pupils with high levels of need do better in smaller schools�. One of the key things I believe at the heart of this is that the mixed age and gender classroom environment more accurately reflects family life and therefore a more settled environment. Children are able quite naturally to mix and make friends very easily with others of different age groups and genders and have smaller peer groups. Instead of trying to cut these schools out, I believe that education councillors and officers should embrace and understand the benefits that Selsted offers children from rural backgrounds and those of special educational needs.

A view supported by Ben Hayes of the Kent Education Psychology Service in his report of May 2006 on Selsted School. 

I would like now to respond to some of the issues raised in the KCC Public Consultation Document and a document from David Adams, Area Education Officer dated 18 May 2006 to SOAB.

Why Close Selsted School?

Yes, the crude analysis on the surface of the facts are spot on! But as with many things from the documents from the KCC, this does not tell the whole story. Since 1991 until 2003 there was steady and continuous growth in pupil numbers, with classrooms increasing from 2 to 4. Nothing in life goes in a straight line and I believe given the fact that Mr Adams has acknowledged to SOAB that Hawkinge is Shepway's growth area, it is very premature to draw any safe conclusions. Why do I say this with such conviction. Simple, because all the houses are not yet built and occupied in Hawkinge and the statistics quoted to do with the ratio of children to houses are at the end of the day only averages. It is here in the use of statistics to justify on the one hand ,the closure of Selsted School, and on the other the expansion of Churchill School is I believe a fault line in the KCC`s argument. 

Let me present you with the following data in relation to do the expected number of pupils /100 new houses:

To close Selsted: Cllr.Susan Carey, KCC`s Lead Member for Education wrote on the 9/05/06,`every 100 new two bedroom house produces less than 14 pupils and every 100 three bedroom house produces less than 17, whilst flats produce 3/100. Say an average of 12/100 new build.

To expand Churchill School, Dr.Ian Craig writes on the 13/3/03 in a puplic consultation document relating to the building programme in Hawkinge that with about 150 properties being completed each year,it is anticipated that will produce 56 extra primary school children each year. That`s an average of 37.3/100 new build. Current data today from SDC shows there are 727 dwellings planned for but not yet built or occupied in Hawkinge.That will produce about 270 primary school children on Dr.Craig`s figures or 88 using Cllr.Carey`s. 

Who do you chose to believe? Cllr. Carey your County Councillor, or Dr. Craig the very person who ironically wrote to you on the 5/06/06 the document, `Proposed closure of Selsted Church of England Primary School`. Quite clearly their is a discrepancy! And if this is wrong, what else is? 

Selsted School is located in a very isolated position. 

True! My great grandfather was commissioned as the local builder to build the school precisely here at the interception of the three parishes of Denton, Wootton and Swingfield, by the three local churches to serve the then as now dispersed rural population. Today, strange as it may seem after 135 years it still fulfils this function, although the population of children has shifted somewhat to one side as a result of constantly changing economic forces. It never has been a school that has had a close catchment area and yet has been and continues to be a good servant to the surrounding local community chosen by parents and recommended by the LEA. With many parents choosing to send their children to this school outside there normal catchment area they must be saying something about the quality of education received here. Yes, I agree with the LEA, education is not all about buildings.

The existing school buildings are rather disjointed.

Poppycock! They have evolved since 1981 and if anyone is interested I have a photograph of the school which shows just the main school building. The mobile classrooms have in recent times, been renewed and their layout is no different to many other schools in the Shepway area. On the contrary the total layout of the site is very organised and compact and makes very good use of the space available including the recent addition of a new community sports hall which was won in competition with other schools. What a waste of public money if this school is now forced to close and highlights a lack of financial strategy and planning over the last few years, which had it happened in the private sector would cause heads to roll. Indicative of this is the £575K that would have to be repaid by KCC to some of the various funding bodies. 

And since we are on finance, of course there would be very little capital gain to the County through the selling of the school building and small playing field since most of that would go to the Church. 

What a pity, all the effort in the last 25 years to build up a school, so for the first time ever, it does not want for anything. And here Mr Chairman I feel I must refer to the description of the school, that part which says “consists of a Victorian school which holds one classroom and a school-house. This, to put it mildly is an incorrect description as you may have obviously seen before tonight's meeting. The school house as originally designed and its function no longer exists and is today an integral part of the working and teaching environment of the school, contained within it is the school office, library, computer suite, head teacher's office, staff room and facilities whilst the original school contains a little more than one classroom as you would have no doubt seen. As for the phrase “in due course the school would require significant capital investment to modernise it'. isn't that precisely what I am saying has happened over the last 25 years and why it would be a criminal waste of resources to close it now. 

Those spent resources have now seen the blossoming of a pre-school playgroup and out of school club which currently cater for 57 children and contrary to the report to SOAB para 3.2. (9) it is fee paying, not voluntary. The same as Lydd primary school.

Another reason put forward for closure is that Selsted school has a low percentage of ethic minority pupils, but that is hardly surprising as the school population reflects the local population and please tell me where there is alternative school provision locally that has a high population. 

Listed are the primary strategy recommendations 27 to 31 which Mr Adams says are consistent with the rationale for closure but what I would like to ask is why no reference is made to PS 26 which says “within an overall policy of inclusion, special schools and units need to be retained for a small minority of children who cannot realise their full potential within mainstream classes. Equally applicable at this point would be PS32 of which no reference is made and which refers to the re-investment of capital receipts from redundant schools, which many of us know is hardly applicable in this case. 

In my business and public life I have always known that presentation of information is crucial. And here we come to a very important point.

Let us turn to the PAN of which a great deal is said, firstly Churchill School. It is claimed there is currently a PAN of 420 but in fact the truth of the matter it is currently 270. This fact also is confirmed in the document I have already refered to by Dr. Ian Craig dated the 13/3/06. 

Why? Because it does not have seven years with a PAN of 60 but currently has 2X60 and 5X30 because of the way the school has been built and therefore the % surplus at Churchill is not 38.81% as presented, but 8.2% which also changes the overall Shepway position without any further changes to 8.57%. Lets look at Dymchurch school. I have no problem with what is being proposed to reduce the PAN but equally some of this could apply to Selsted. For example, could another use be made of spare classroom as at this school, thus reducing the PAN by 26. Solving the critical percentage overnight.

I would like to draw members attention now to the Kent Primary Strategy Document page 2.

The consultation exercise undertaken during 6 weeks of which 2 weeks was taken up with Christmas School holidays. Were the consultees eyes firmly on the ball in the run-up to Christmas. The results of the consultation could have been different if it had been carried out at a more appropriate time.

Chairman, having worked in a multi-national organisation driven by departmental budgets and having been an Executive Councillor at Shepway District Council with responsibility for over viewing many different budgets running in parallel, I was always acutely aware of how narrow sometimes an individual departments focus can be. This is very often to the detriment of other budgets of other departments at a later stage. I have explained to you, as no doubt others have and will do, the excellent track record Selsted School and its very experienced staff have for putting SEN pupils on the right track with many later becoming very useful citizens to this country. Let us not forget these very people make a positive contribution in finance to the public purse and are not a drain on it as can happen on all too frequent an occasion when disaffected pupils become a drain on the benefit, social, housing and police budgets to name but a few.

Important research has shown that investment in early education and building effective home and school partnerships delivers huge financial returns in terms of reduced social costs and enhanced tax revenues.

To close this school without, as I have demonstrated any significant financial capital contribution, would be in my view a complete dereliction of duty and care to the taxpayer.

Life flourishes and is enriched by diversity, Selsted School is but part of that very diversity that enriches the people it serves. 

Once lost it can never be re-created".